The Lawyers are revolting !

[detective-boy]

I'm not quite clear what point you're making ... are you saying that lawyers should do the legal aid stuff out of the goodness of their hearts ?

No, of course I'm not.

All I am saying is that lawyers who choose to work in publicly funded law must expect to receive publicly funded fees ... and not corporate fat-cat fees. In exactly the same way that publicly funded doctors, teachers, managers, etc. accept the same.

I do not understand how we have this situation where the public is held to ransom over (pretty well paid by any standard) legal aid work with lawyers implying that if it can't be paid at corporate rates, they'll all fuck off.

Go look at what legal aid actually pays lawyers in hourly rates, etc. ... then tell me they're hard done by. You ever seen a "poor" lawyer?

 

[detective-boy]

For over 10 years, an increasing number of not-for-profit organisations have been directly involved in civil legal aid work, helping the very poorest people gain free advice on welfare benefits, debt, housing, education, employment, immigration, etc etc.

These sources of legal advice should so not be penalised - but it is the greed of many other lawyers which is causing the pressure they are suffering. The changes may be a blunt instrument - and the effects of that should be reviewed - but some action is essential or the fat-cats will continue to rip the public off.

It never ceases to amaze me that the public consciousness is so simplistic - lawyer = good, always and for ever, fighting for the rights of the down-trodden ... no thought necessary... Some are, many are not.

Access to justice is, I think, by far the worst aspect of the welfare state today (cf. education, medicine, housing, etc.). Paying corporate law rates top all public sector lawyers is not the way to improve that. Fiorcing the legal profession to join the real world may be.

 

[detective-boy]

The factors driving up expenditure could well include:

• New government targets to bring more offenders to justice
• The increasing complexity of criminal cases, meaning longer trials
• New criminal offences and changes in court procedures

I'm sure they - and more - have done exactly that. The costing of changes to criminal law and procedure are very rarely costed through and their implications fully considered. This applies equally to defence and court interests as to police and prosecution interests.

 

[janeb]

Go look at what legal aid actually pays lawyers in hourly rates, etc. ... then tell me they're hard done by. You ever seen a "poor" lawyer?

Because, of course, the lawyer actually receives in their pocket the full hourly fee they can charge, don't they - none of it has to go towards paying any staff or running costs of the practice they work in does it?

Maybe some of the 'fat cats' do bring home that sort of money, but again you're using a bad example to make a poor point - I've just looked up police salaries as a comparison that I suppose you'll understand. I don't think my legal aid lawyer husband would be too pleased about me posting his salary details on the internet so I won't, but he earns less than any Police Sergeant and less than a PC with 7 years service. Surprised?

And that's having trained part time whilst working over 8 years, paying the course fees and so on. I'm not pleading a case for him - he knew what he was doing when he decided to train as a lawyer and all the way through wanted to work in legal aid type work because he is personally committed to such novel concepts as justice for all, including the poor and those who drop through every other safety net.

But lets stop the sneery comments directed at all lawyers, it weakens your arguement to be honest. I agree with you about the lawyers who take the piss, but that's not all of them - and the suggested cuts mean that far fewer will be around to do legal aid work in the future because, frankly, even lawyers need to be paid to be a job (as do the support staff and the office rent and so on...). I don't earn enough for him to carry on doing his job for free

 

[detective-boy]

Surprised?

No.

He probably earns less than a tube driver as well ...

I am not making any sort of comparison across different professions - I am purely and simply pointing out that within all professions there are public-sector and private-sector rates. The law should not expect to be different. It, as a rule, does. And, to a great extent, people fall for the "We're here to defend you so any knocking back of the ridiculous fees we charge is actually an assault on your rights" and "If you don't pay top dollar you'll just get useless fuckwits (which, by the way, they would use to include your other half ...) acting for you" arguments ...".

 

[teuchter]

lawyers implying that if it can't be paid at corporate rates, they'll all fuck off.

I still don't quite get your point ... do you think they're bluffing and they won't "all fuck off"? If so, then there's not a problem.

If they do, then there is a problem, quite a big problem.

 

[teuchter]

Paying corporate law rates top all public sector lawyers is not the way to improve that. Fiorcing the legal profession to join the real world may be.

What exactly do you mean by "joining the real world"?

 

[detective-boy]

I still don't quite get your point ... do you think they're bluffing and they won't "all fuck off"? If so, then there's not a problem.

I think the ones doing the whinging are mostly the ones who no-one would miss if they did fuck off and do more lucrative stuff.

The ones that need to have some proper funding stream and agreed charging protocols are the law centre ones such as janeb's husband.

The changes are not intended to impact on them so far as I can see - but (as usual) there is likely to be some unintended consequence.

 

[detective-boy]

What exactly do you mean by "joining the real world"?

A real world like the rest of the professions, where there are public-sector going rates and private-sector going rates.

This has been the entire thrust of every post I have made on this thread.

 

[Cobbles]

I am purely and simply pointing out that within all professions there are public-sector and private-sector rates.

If the Government is only capable of paying bottom dollar than it'll get what it pays for - the private sector recognises the value in buying what actually matches its requirements rather than slavishly going for the "cheapest" option.

The main problem with the Government's current proposition is that it's looking for a feeing structure based on "all cases are the same so here's a bog standard fee".

They may get a real surprise when they discover that you can only erode structures so far before the firms will give up Legally Aided work and then they'll have to fall back on their experimental salaried Public Defender offices which, if they were any use at all would have replaced free market sourced Legal aid by now (to their horror they discovered that they actually cost more per case).

 

[teuchter]

I am purely and simply pointing out that within all professions there are public-sector and private-sector rates.

But often with the result that the quality of service is better from the private-sector equivalent, though, isn't it?

And the greater the difference between the rates of pay, the greater the difference in quality. So by reducing the rates for legal aid, those who recieve it will get a lower quality of legal representation.

I'm not sure the lawyers are "expecting" anything. They're just pointing out that if the incentives to work on legal aid cases are reduced, less of them will want to do so, and consequently the quality of legal aid will suffer.

I don't see any other way round this than making it compulsory for all lawyers to spend a proportion of their time on legal aid cases.

 

[teuchter]

A real world like the rest of the professions, where there are public-sector going rates and private-sector going rates.

This has been the entire thrust of every post I have made on this thread.

But they are in this "real world". They have the choice betwen public sector work and private sector work. Like everyone else does. And these changes, it would seem, will make it less likely that they choose the public sector rates.

 

[teuchter]

I think the ones doing the whinging are mostly the ones who no-one would miss if they did fuck off and do more lucrative stuff.

I don't think that's really true ... I think the protests are mainly coming from those who genuinely want to work on legal aid cases for reasons other than pure financial gain. As witnessed by some of the links I and others have provided earlier in the thread.

 

[TAE]

Not if lawyers are willing to do it for reasonable fees ...

You mean that "entirely altrusitic, caring, sharing legal profession", as you put it?

I think it'll be like the difficulties one has finding NHS dentists these days.

 

[teuchter]

I think it'll be like the difficulties one has finding NHS dentists these days.

Yes. A good comparison.

 

[detective-boy]

You mean that "entirely altrusitic, caring, sharing legal profession", as you put it?

I think it'll be like the difficulties one has finding NHS dentists these days.

So we have two alternatives - force them to enter the real world by standing up to them and changing things or give in to their blackmail.

 

[teuchter]

So we have two alternatives - force them to enter the real world by standing up to them and changing things or give in to their blackmail.

"Standing up to them" in what way and changing what things?

 

[detective-boy]

"Standing up to them" in what way and changing what things?

Not just paying them whatever they ask for (in the same way we don;t just pay NHS dentists whatever they ask for).

And by putting in place a proper structure for public access to justice (which is nowhere near what we have at the moment, particularly in relation to civil law).

 

[teuchter]

Not just paying them whatever they ask for (in the same way we don;t just pay NHS dentists whatever they ask for).

But you're not addressing the point that if we don't pay them enough, they'll just go elsewhere ... and we'll have a shortage of good lawyers willing to take on legal aid cases, just like we've got a shortage of dentists willing to take on NHS cases.

And by putting in place a proper structure for public access to justice (which is nowhere near what we have at the moment, particularly in relation to civil law).

I'll agree with you there, certainly.

 

[detective-boy]

But you're not addressing the point that if we don't pay them enough, they'll just go elsewhere ... and we'll have a shortage of good lawyers willing to take on legal aid cases, just like we've got a shortage of dentists willing to take on NHS cases.

OK, pay them whatever they ask for.

Lawyers are obviously immune from any requirement to live in the real world like everyone else. This is just going round and round in circles. Everyone else sustains a difference between public-sector and private-sector and the world doesn't end, but, hey, lets exempt the lawyers.

 

[teuchter]

OK, pay them whatever they ask for.

Lawyers are obviously immune from any requirement to live in the real world like everyone else. This is just going round and round in circles. Everyone else sustains a difference between public-sector and private-sector and the world doesn't end, but, hey, lets exempt the lawyers.

If you're suggesting that there isn't a link between what they're paid and the quality of the job that gets done ... then why pay them anything at all?

It's not a case of paying them whatever they ask for. It's about paying them at a level that is high enough to provide enough of an incentive for people of good enough quality to do the job you need done. Exactly the same as in any other sector. I don't get what all this "real world" stuff is about.

You can sustain a difference but I'm saying that if the difference is too great, then there are going to be problems.

The dentist situation is a case in point, isn't it?

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

These sources of legal advice should so not be penalised - but it is the greed of many other lawyers which is causing the pressure they are suffering. The changes may be a blunt instrument - and the effects of that should be reviewed - but some action is essential or the fat-cats will continue to rip the public off.

It never ceases to amaze me that the public consciousness is so simplistic - lawyer = good, always and for ever, fighting for the rights of the down-trodden ... no thought necessary... Some are, many are not.

Access to justice is, I think, by far the worst aspect of the welfare state today (cf. education, medicine, housing, etc.). Paying corporate law rates top all public sector lawyers is not the way to improve that. Fiorcing the legal profession to join the real world may be.

Sorry but i disagree with you on this. What appears to be happening is that the behaviour of a tiny minority of lawyers (both solicitors and barristers) in taking the piss with legal aid, particularly on complex and long-running cases, is being used as a justification to severly reduce payment rates, as well as what work can be claimed for under legal aid, across the piece.

As a result, the supplier base of solicitors, particularly small firms who provide valuable local services, are making decisions to pull out of legal aid work because it is costing them too much money. They have already been subsidising the costs of doing legal aid work from their private practice work for many years (because surprisingly as it may seem to an old cynic to you, some lawyers do act in the spirit of upholding the law) but rates have been frozen for ~5 years and now even larger cuts are proposed in the name of efficiency.

You could easily bring the budget under much better control by being much more rigourous to the long-running complex criminal cases, which are responsible for a massive proportion of the spend. You could also stop passing legislation for new laws like its fucking confetti, and therefore reduce the need for quite so many duty solicitors to attend to offences which are quite frankly farcical.

And please don't insult my intelligence by talking about public conciousness - i know what's happening here and it's an insidious effect along with chipping away at the right to a jury trial, letting defendants speak about the effect of an offence to affect sentencing, ASBOs that lead to criminal sentences despite no criminal trial, the list goes on and on. Reducing the availability and the quality of legal aid, which is what these reforms are already doing, hits the rights to justice for the poorest people.

After all, if a few bad apples are enough to spoil the barrel, where does that leave the boys in blue after the birmingham 6, guildford 4, bridgwater 4, m25 3? You wouldn't expect me to say that on that basis, all coppers are lying cheating bastards would you DB? That's deliberately provocative but it helps to illustrate a point i feel.

 

[detective-boy]

What appears to be happening is that the behaviour of a tiny minority of lawyers (both solicitors and barristers) in taking the piss with legal aid, particularly on complex and long-running cases, is being used as a justification to severly reduce payment rates, as well as what work can be claimed for under legal aid, across the piece.

I don't think it is a "tiny minority" - if it were it wouldn't have been noticed, let alone led to wholesale change. It may well be a tiny minority who are dishonest, but there is a much larger group who want to be allowed to use the same / similar charging basis for legal aid work as they do for other stuff. I'm not at all convinced that many are "not making money" on legal aid stuff - simply that they aren't making as much money. Which is different. And many are anything but efficient.

(By the way, we all go ballistic about banks charging £30 for an overdraft letter ... anyone know what briefs charge for one?)

 

[TAE]

So we have two alternatives - force them to enter the real world by standing up to them and changing things or give in to their blackmail.

Asking them to accept that "a weeks wage" should be the same as "half a year's wage" is not what I call 'force them to enter the real world'.

 

[detective-boy]

After all, if a few bad apples are enough to spoil the barrel, where does that leave the boys in blue after the birmingham 6, guildford 4, bridgwater 4, m25 3? You wouldn't expect me to say that on that basis, all coppers are lying cheating bastards would you DB?

I thought that view was de riguer here - you do read the bollocks some posters spout, don't you?

But be that as it may - if the police were whinging that they could get more money doping something similar (e.g. detectives going to work in corporate investigation) and therefore they should be paid more or the quality of the police would fall, I'd use exactly the same argument - don't give in to their blackmail.

And I have no problem with a public sector hourly rate for solicitors and barristers to be higher than that for police officers. Just not the same as for private sector solicitors and barristers.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

I don't think it is a "tiny minority" - if it were it wouldn't have been noticed, let alone led to wholesale change. It may well be a tiny minority who are dishonest, but there is a much larger group who want to be allowed to use the same / similar charging basis for legal aid work as they do for other stuff. I'm not at all convinced that many are "not making money" on legal aid stuff - simply that they aren't making as much money. Which is different. And many are anything but efficient.

(By the way, we all go ballistic about banks charging £30 for an overdraft letter ... anyone know what briefs charge for one?)

We sound like a couple of shylocks (woo racist!!) 'tiny minority' 'not making much' you say potato i say potato...nah what i mean?

I still don't agree with your analysis about making much money but it is undeniable that the approach of the government is causing many many solicitors to pull out which will have knock-on effects across the board, not least in terms of the cops having to hold suspects in cells until a brief can be found.

Legal aid has been described as the 'cinderalla' service of the welfare state which isn't too far from the truth. I agree it needs attention, i don't agree that it requires such extreme surgery is all. Solicitors aren't far behind estate agents in public trustworthyness iirc, but i know who i'd rather have repping me if the worst came to the worst.

 

[Cobbles]

But be that as it may - if the police were whinging that they could get more money doping something similar (e.g. detectives going to work in corporate investigation) and therefore they should be paid more or the quality of the police would fall, I'd use exactly the same argument - don't give in to their blackmail.

Quality???? Exactly what are the baseline qualifications required for entrance to the police forces? I don't know for sure but I imagine that the threshold'll be a weeny bit lower than the minimum level accepted for an LLB degree which isn't the real starting point as competition is fierce.

How long is basic police training? 3 years? Longer? I thought not.

And I have no problem with a public sector hourly rate for solicitors and barristers to be higher than that for police officers. Just not the same as for private sector solicitors and barristers.

There's no such thing as a split between "Public" and "private" sector lawyering (apart from the small percentage of lawyers who actually work in Govt. Legal depts. who are paid the same as equivelent practice areas), merely the commercial choice whether or not to go after publicly funded work which is the same as the commercial choice whether or not to go after bulk conveyancing/remortage work - if you specialise and organise appropriately then you can make a profit at it but you can't mix and match. That's the problem.

The "one fee fits all" feeing structure means that a small chamber practice in a county town dealing with walk-in business simply won't be able to afford to take on a few legal aid clients who'll then have to use a city based specialised practice.

 

[aylee]

OK, well I'm a revolting lawyer.

I don't do criminal work any more, but two years ago I agreed to appear for a client at her sentencing as a favour to a solicitor who had instructed me in some civil cases. I had to read about 200 pages of documents before going to do the case. The client had pleaded guilty to a £50,000 benefit fraud which meant that she was almost certain to go to prison immediately.

I arrived at Harrow Crown Court at 9am for a 9.45am listing. The client had her 14 year old daughter with her. The solicitor hadn't told her that a prison sentence was likely and so no arrangements had been made for her. The client was hysterical at the thought of going to prison and I had to spend hours while we were waiting to get on trying to soothe her and her daughter and to persuade her to give me contact numbers so that I could ring round relatives if the worst came to the worst.

We drew a notorious 'hanging' judge and finally got before him at 2.30pm. My mitigation didn't prevent a prison sentence. The client was howling in the box and her daughter was weeping. She got six months, which was at lower end of the sentencing scale for such an offence (don't get me started on the stupidity of sending a single parent to prison for a first offence like this). In the cells afterwards, it took an hour before she was calm again and I could explain the effect of the judge's sentence and talk to her about what was to be done about her daughter. After another hour of ringing various relatives, I finally managed to get someone to pick up the poor girl and take her away.

I left court at 4.30pm and had to return to chambers to write an advice on appeal against sentence (a compulsory requirement in every case) which took another half-hour.

For all that, I got paid £83 plus VAT. That was before travel, chambers rent, clerks' fees and income tax.

That is the reality of life for the junior criminal bar. But of course, journalists can't distinguish between them and the senior QCs who earn nearly a million a year, can they?

 

[detective-boy]

For all that, I got paid £83 plus VAT. That was before travel, chambers rent, clerks' fees and income tax.

That is clearly inadequate - but that is what you (who actually did all the work you described (much of which I would suggest should not be done by a trained barrister anyway - all the preparation / support sort of stuff for the defendant)) got paid.

I doubt very much whether £83 plus VAT is all that the public paid for the defence of that defendant at Crown Court that day ... and therein lies some of the problem - a bit like the price of milk finding it's way to the farmer, does the legal aid fee find it's way to the lawyer actually doing the work / adding value?

 

[aylee]

That is clearly inadequate - but that is what you (who actually did all the work you described (much of which I would suggest should not be done by a trained barrister anyway - all the preparation / support sort of stuff for the defendant)) got paid.

Well of course I shouldn't have had to play the roles of social worker and counsellor in the way that I had to. However, that is sometimes the reality of this job .... client care involves a lot more than merely advising a client as to the legal position and doing your best for them in court anyway. The preparation was all very much required in order to put forward the best possible mitigation.

I doubt very much whether £83 plus VAT is all that the public paid for the defence of that defendant at Crown Court that day ... and therein lies some of the problem - a bit like the price of milk finding it's way to the farmer, does the legal aid fee find it's way to the lawyer actually doing the work / adding value?

The system is that criminal barristers are paid a set fee on some sliding scales for the work that they do. Solicitors are paid on a separate scheme. But I understand that a lot of their rates are little better than the sort of fees that criminal counsel can get. In terms of the costs of that day, £83 was what it cost the government for my day in court. The solicitors would have got paid for preparing the brief to me and taking a proof from the client, but I can assure you that they would not have got very much.